A commenter takes me to task, sort of, for posting the Obama in native garb photo.  I am always open to constructive criticism, and ready for a good argument.  I also am flattered, if I take his point correctly, that he feels this type of thing is below my standard.  That depends on the standard.  Mine, as intended in this case, is not to endorse bigotry but only acknowledge its role in this election. 

The display of that photo was simply to use it as an illustration of the larger point; that imagery will play a more prominent role in this election than any in our lifetime, for reasons both benign and malignant. 

The benign is that advances in technology allow us to circulate images faster.  Basically we are in for more imagery because its supply is both larger and more accessible.  This, as we shall see as the campaign unfolds, can be either a good thing or a bad thing.  Where I failed my readers is to make it clear I think the use of that image was cynical, depraved, and most probably a genuine attempt at fear-mongering.  

From a more detached viewpoint, it will probably work, the only question is to what extent.  It will not make a bit of difference to most, but then, it wasn't aimed at them, it was a deliberate play to bigots.  Whoever released that photo did so on the calculation that there are enough bigot voters in Texas, Ohio, and Pennsylvania to risk the potential backlash. (sure enough, because the leakers are Democrats, the backlash has been minimal. One can only imagine the howls had a Republican pulled this)     

The malignant reason imagery will play an overly prominent role is because one of the candidates complexion happens to be darker, historically darker.  Another not minor factoid is that his Dad, and Dads Dad, are Muslim.  Sorry, but these are facts.  That they are pertinent to me is irrelevant because there are plenty of other reasons to vote against Obama.  But the fact remains that if they are pertinent to anybody they are fair game for debate.  I will not ignore these facts because doing so would be to abide a double standard, which I detest, and a defacto endorsement of political correctness.  

If nothing else this blog will not veer from the truth no matter how ugly.  I'm just an armchair pundit safely ensconced in flyover country.  I see what I see how I see it, and say what I say how I say it.  I have no dog in this fight so my focus will be on the process, warts and all.  That a candidate has inconvenient ancestry should not make or break his candidacy but it should not be blithely dismissed as inconsequential when any thinking person knows better.  

This is the most consequential election in decades.  The media scrutiny, justifiably so given the stakes, will make a proctological exam seem like a day at the beach.  Nothing will be off the table.  The best we can hope is that the imagery we are presented is better than looking through a proctoscope. 

This is the low point so far and that it happened in and during the Democrat primary not only confirms suspicions about some of them but also bodes well.  Between Obama's hope and McCain's honor we should reasonably expect an elevated debate during the general campaign.  That, but it also helps, and goes without saying, that any election without a Clinton will be cleaner.  Now there's a change I can handle.    

UPDATE:
For further reading on this particular photo and the larger point
The Somali Dress is Just the Beginning - Peter Brown, The Politico offers some interesting insights.